Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-02-02
THE McwHORTER CASE.
The Articles from the Marysvilie "Den
acrat Adxaitted in EXideuce.

! The Articles from the Marysville Dem
ocrat" Admitted in Evidence.
When the Superior Court adjourned on
Monday evening arguments were pending
in the case of the People VS.. McWhorter.
charged with manslaughter, relative to
the admission, as evidence, of certain arii-
cles published in the Marysville Democrat
(of which McWhorter, the defendant, is
editor, rejecting upon T. g. Robinson, the
deceased. This testimony was offered by
the prosecution, and its admissiblity COM
batted by the defense. The purpose OF the
prosecution was TO show that defendant
had published libelous criticisms of de-
ceased's actions while acting as an agent OF
| the Anti-Debris Association with the OBJ
! ject of provoking an assault upon editor
McWhorter.
The arguments were resumed upon the
| opening of the Court yesterday morning.
| Charles T. Jones opened for the prosecu-
ton, and was followed by General Hdrt,
also for the prosecution, who cited various
authorities in support OF the position OF
the prosecution in asking the admission OF
the testimony referred to. During the ar
gument the members of the jury were ex-
Guided from the Courtroom. General
Hart concluded his argument at ii o clock.
He was followed by Mr.. johnson, who
argued strenuously against the admlssl-
bility of the articles from the Democrat,
holding that the publication by defendant
of criticisms concerning Robinson did not
justify the assumption that the defendant
sought to provoke Robinson into an assault
for the purpose of taking his life.
The Court, in deciding the question, said
|, hot anv testimony tapdiup m show the
condition of the defendants mind at the
time of the assault would be properly adj
Missile before the jury, as tending to
show whether or not the act of defendant
was done through fear of bodily harm, or
was the result of predetermiation TO commit
grave crime The objection of the de-
Tense would be overuied and the testimony
admitted.
General Heart then read, from the col
umns of defendants paper of July %, 1886,
the following extract;
We learn that the noble T. Il. Robinson is still
at work for SeXey as a spy. He of copper
fame is sill trusted servant Of the big hearted
Sexey. If the people of this valley suppose
they can trust their lives and their fortunes in
the hands of a man that can sit day alter day
on the bank of hydraulic claim while the
pipes play in full view, and yet cannot see them
piping, they are more easily duped than we are
willing to believe. If the good citizens of this
valley feel safe with the valley interests IN the
hands of man that little blaze" can drive
from house of i'll fame in his shirt-tail, when
he should be guarding their homes from the
effects of the monitor, then they are more trust
ing than we think is sensible
Isaac Stearn, business manager of the
Marysville Democrat identified the article
as having appeared in that journal. He
also identified the following as having ap-
peared editorially in the same paper about
a month before:
Has anybody heard what has been done with
T. G.. Robinson? When the Democrat first found
out that the said 7. G. Robinson was fraud as
a spy, and Il success as money-taker, Sexey d
Co were righteously indignant, but how is it
to-day? Not one of his ancient defenders would
deal more lightly with his good name than we
have done. Still they have not brought him to
account like we were made to hear they would
do as soon as he was convicted of crookedness
On cross-examination witness said that
he purchased pistol for defendant because
of threats he had heard of as having been
made by Robinson against McWhorter. He
had never heard McWhorter make threats
against Robinson.
T. A. Forbes District Attorney of Yuba
county, was the next witness. He testified
that day or so after the homicide he had
an interview with New horter in the Sacra-
mento Jail, during which the latter said it
was unfortunate to be obliged to take
human life. Witness remarked that he was
glad it did not take place in Yuba county,
as he would be obliged to prosecute him.
Defendant replied that he had thought of
that and knowing that it had to come off,
had concluded it would be best to have it
take place in Sacramento.
On cross-examination witness admitted
that the best of relations did not exist be-
tween him and defendant. He had no inn
proper motive at the time of visiting de-
PENDANT in the city prison at Sacramento
1t was not his purpose to induce defendant
to make admissions that might be preiudi-
cial to his case. He had consulted with
the attorneys for the prosecution, but dis
claimed having taken any active part in
the prosecution. He had talked with Mr..
Sexey and others in Yuba county regard
ing his interview with McWhorter in the
Sacramento Jail, and detailed to them the
statements made by the latter. During the
last political campaign witness had spoken
harshly of defendant in his public speeches.
On one occasion he denounced defendant as
a liar.
There was some redirect testimony, but
it developed nothing Of importance.
Recess till 1:30.